Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: msf@sunbow.East.Sun.COM (Mike Fischbein)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Time-lapse PALs on nuclear attack subs
Message-ID: <15587@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Apr 90 04:11:42 GMT
References: <15509@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Albany, NY
Lines: 37
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: msf@sunbow.East.Sun.COM (Mike Fischbein)


Maybe I'm the who's overlooking the obvious, but I think the debates
on PALs for subs are  missing the point.

1) Any of the technicians who work on the systems involved, whether at
ICBM silos or on FBMs, should be able to bypass a PAL.  (Yes, there's
the two man rule, etc.  But we are discussing a hypothetical case
where all those necessary for launch -- whether in a silo or a sub --
have simultaneously decided to launch regardless of outside orders).

2) Bypassing the PAL will take some amount of time.

3) Doing this in the silo will cause alarms and various notifications
to other areas, presumably leading to members of other units (Air
Force, Army, National Guard, State Police....) arriving and taking
actions to prevent the illegal launch, or to destroy the missile
on launch.

4) Doing this on a sub will cause alarms and various notifications,
but they will all be on the sub.  Since we are already stipulating
that the crewmembers are intent on an illegal launch, they will
simply ignore or disable the alarms.

5) If these alarms will have no deterrent effect (and I assume that
you'd need a lot more people convinced to do a sub launch than a
silo launch), what is the purpose of having them?

		mike

Michael Fischbein,  Technical Consultant, Sun Professional Services
Sun Albany, NY  518-783-9613  sunbow!msf or mfischbein@east.sun.com
These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person
or organization.                                    Save the skeet!